Citation Nr: 9928480
Decision Date: 09/30/99 Archive Date: 10/12/99
DOCKET NO. 95-02 724A ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Seattle,
Washington
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for eczema.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of
the United States
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
K. K. Enferadi, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran had active service from July 1977 to November
1985.
This matter arises before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) from a July 1994 rating decision by the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that denied
entitlement to service connection for eczema.
A review of the record reveals that the veteran filed VA Form
9 dated on October 29, 1997 with respect to the issue of
entitlement to service connection for residuals of burns to
the face, neck, and hand. The veteran indicated at that time
that he wished to have a hearing before a Member of the
Board. However, the Board notes that the veteran's
substantive appeal (Form 9) on that matter was not timely
filed. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.203 (b) (1998). Further, in light
of the fact that there is no indication in the record that
the veteran wished to have a hearing on the matter currently
before the Board, the Board concludes that the veteran has in
no way been prejudiced for lack of a personal hearing.
FINDING OF FACT
Medical evidence of a nexus between eczema and the veteran's
period of service has not been submitted.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for
eczema is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West
1991).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
Background
Upon a review of the record, an enlistment examination dated
in June 1977 contained in the veteran's service medical
records is silent for any pertinent findings. The Board
notes that also included in the veteran's service medical
records are several clinical entries dated in July 1983 with
diagnoses of mild chronic superficial perivasculitis on the
right arm and acute erythema nodosum in the right lower leg;
a notation of a minimum rash and a diagnosis of maculopapular
rash; and polyarthritis accompanied by a rash. None of these
records includes a diagnosis of eczema. At separation,
examination report dated in March 1985 is negative for any
relevant notations or findings.
Post-service records include a report from VA examination
conducted in April 1994 in which the examiner rendered a
diagnosis of eczema and noted extensive eczematoid changes.
Private medical outpatient records extending from 1993 to
1995 primarily relate to treatment of the veteran's
hepatitis. In one clinical record dated in November 1994,
the physician noted a very slight petechial rash on the
veteran's lower legs without ulceration or scarring.
In the report from VA examination dated in May 1995, there
are no relevant complaints or clinical findings.
Analysis
The veteran in this case alleges that he is entitled to
service connection for his eczema. A veteran is entitled to
service connection for disability resulting from disease or
injury coincident with active service, or if preexisting such
service, was aggravated therein. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West
1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.306(a) (1998). VA Regulations
also provide that service connection may be granted for any
disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence,
including that pertinent to service, establishes that the
disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d)
(1998).
"[A] person who submits a claim for benefits under a law
administered by the Secretary shall have the burden of
submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair
and impartial individual that the claim is well grounded."
38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a); see also Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.
App. 609, 611 (1992). The United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims (known as the United States Court of Veterans
Appeals prior to March 1, 1999, and hereinafter referred to
as Court) has held that there are three basic evidentiary
requirements to establish a well grounded claim for service
connection: (1) a medical diagnosis of a current disability;
(2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of an
inservice occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury;
and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between an inservice
injury or disease and the current disability. Caluza v.
Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995); see also Epps v. Gober,
126 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1997), aff'd sub nom. Epps v. Brown,
9 Vet. App. 341 (1996).
The Court has further held that the second and third elements
of a well grounded claim for service connection can also be
satisfied under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (1998) by (a) evidence
that a condition was "noted" during service or an
applicable presumption period; (b) evidence showing post-
service continuity of symptomatology; and (c) medical or, in
certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the
present disability and post-service symptomatology. See
38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488, 495-
97 (1997).
In this case, where entitlement to service connection for
eczema is at issue, the Board has determined that the veteran
has failed to establish a well grounded claim. Essentially,
the veteran has failed to put forth competent evidence of a
current disability coincident with his period of active
service. See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506. The
inability to meet all three statutory requirements as stated
above necessarily means that the veteran's service connection
claim fails. Id.
Most significant in this case is the lack of competent
evidence, that is, clinical data and/or medical opinions, to
link any post-service eczema to the veteran's period of
service. As stated above, the veteran's service medical
records are silent for any pertinent objective findings. The
Board does recognize that there are several clinical records
that contain notations of a rash; however, there is nothing
to link such rash to a diagnosis of eczema per se. Moreover,
post-service clinical records relate primarily to other
disorders, primarily to treatment of hepatitis. Overall,
there is no evidence to substantiate that the veteran was
treated for eczema in service or even close in time to when
he separated from service. Therefore, in this sense as well,
the veteran has failed to establish a well grounded claim.
In fact, the first indication in the record of eczema appears
in the report from VA examination dated in April 1994, almost
nine years from the time that the veteran was discharged from
service. Thus, although the Board recognizes that the
veteran indeed has been diagnosed with this disability, his
current eczema does not relate in any manner to his period of
service. Thus, the veteran in this sense has failed to
establish a well grounded claim.
Moreover, the Board acknowledges the veteran's assertions
that his eczema relates to his service-connected hepatitis
and that the rashes he relates to his eczema only surfaced
after the diagnosis of hepatitis. Evidence that requires
medical knowledge must be provided by someone qualified as an
expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492 (1992).
In this case, the veteran has not provided any evidence of
such training and qualifications; thus, his allegations
regarding the relationship between his eczema and service are
not medically competent. This, in this regard as well, the
veteran has failed to establish a well grounded claim.
In sum, the Board stresses that the duty to assist the
veteran is triggered only upon the submission of a well
grounded claim. As the Board concludes that if the claim of
service connection is not well grounded, the duty to assist
has not been triggered. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). Moreover,
despite the fact that the Board reached a decision on the
veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for
eczema on different grounds than those the RO considered,
that is, whether the veteran's appeal is well grounded rather
than whether he is entitled to prevail on the merits, the
veteran has in no way been prejudiced by the Board's
approach. Assuming that the veteran's claim was well
grounded, the RO extended greater consideration to him than
was warranted under these particular factual circumstances.
Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 392-94 (1993).
ORDER
Entitlement to service connection for eczema is denied.
V. L. Jordan
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals